Here - Agents Lab - University of Nottingham

Recommendations

Info

intranets. It is important for such applications to provide quick access to theservices required by the business in order to maintain high productivity.The final type of applications are mobile applications, where a large number ofnodes in the application are physically mobile and are typically connected usingwireless connections. This means that the nodes are often restricted in terms ofcomputational resources and network bandwidth. Energy supply is a key factor,stipulating modest use of resources even when more would be available.Cross-platformApplicationsEnterprise BackendApplicationsReal-time ApplicationsHuman Readability low medium low lowStandard Conformance low high medium lowWell-formed Structure low high low lowEditable low medium medium lowPerformance high low high highCompactness high low low highMobile ApplicationsFig. 1. Importance of message format features for different types of applicationsFigure 1 shows the application types and the importance of the messageformat features. Some application types such as real-time applications and mobileapplications have similar feature importance profiles for different reasons.While latency requires prudent use of resources for real-time applications, it isthe energy and physical restrictions that make it a necessity for mobile applications.For cross-platform application the ability to interpret messages is key, soa standard-conformant and well-formed message format takes precedence overcompactness and performance. Enterprise backend applications are more mixed,in that while the intranet typically provides abundant bandwidth, the largenumber of requests still requires good performance.While an agent may have the option to open raw connection to other agents,bypassing the platform messaging service and supplying its own encoding andprotocol, this is usually not advisable for the following reasons: On the one hand,developing an efficient transfer protocol involves a non-trivial amount of effort.It would therefore ease development effort if the agent message layer could beused. On the other hand, the agent system may be running within a restrictedenvironment. For example, enterprise applications typically run on servers wherethe communication is tightly controlled for both support and security reasons.As a result, an agent may not be allowed to make connections outside what isprovided by the agent platform.Furthermore, there is another aspect concerning application development.In practice, there is often a distinction between the development phase of anapplication and production use in a business. For example, during development,applications often include additional logging and debug code to identify faults,include the use of assertions to validate program invariants and use tests tovalidate functionality. During production use, these features are often omittedin favor of higher throughput or lower latency.103
DevelopmentProductionHuman Readability high lowStandard Conformance medium mediumWell-formed Structure high lowEditable high lowPerformance low highCompactness low highFig. 2. Importance of message format features during development and production useFigure 2 demonstrates this difference between the two stages with regard toagent message formats. During development the ability to easily read and modifymessages supports the developer in finding protocol errors and other implementationerrors. In addition, a well-formed structure allows the use of validationtools to ensure message correctness; however, this changes during productionuse. Good encoding and decoding performance and message compactness aidsboth system throughput and latency. During production use, this takes precedenceover issues like message readability, since the development has completedand it is no longer necessary for humans to read agent messages.The next section will take a look at common agent message formats that havebeen traditionally used by multi-agent systems and show how well they supportthe proposed message format features. This will show that there is potential forimprovements for both performance and compactness if other features are lessof a concern.3 Related WorkOver time, multi-agent system have used a variety of message formats. Earlysystem used simple ad-hoc languages in string-based formats; however, this resultedin languages that were specific to the application and made it difficult formulti-agent systems to interact. As a result, languages were developed to allowinterchange between agent applications and agent platforms. One early attemptat defining an agent language was the Knowledge Query and Manipulation Language(KQML) [2]. However, it was quickly recognized that a standard languageis useful for allowing communication between different agent systems.Accordingly, the Foundation of Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA) proposedtwo standards, the FIPA Agent Communication Language (ACL) [3] for themessage structure and a specific language for the message content called FIPASL [4] with different levels of complexity reaching from FIPA SL0 to FIPA SL2,both of which are used in popular agent platforms such as Jade [5].This distinction between structure and content is retained in later formatsas well. For example, while the Jadex Agent Platform [6] only uses a singleXML-based format called Jadex XML, it distinguishes between message andcontent encoding. However, it uses Jadex XML for encoding both the messageand content. Since the bulk of the message for the types of applications beingtargeted tends to be the content, the focus of this paper will be content encoding.104
Page 2 and 3:
Proceedings of the Tenth Internatio
Page 4 and 5:
OrganisationOrganising CommitteeMeh
Page 6:
Table of ContentseJason: an impleme
Page 10 and 11:
in Sect. 3 the translation of the J
Page 12 and 13:
init_count(0).max_count(2000).(a)(b
Page 14 and 15:
For instance, a failure in the ERES
Page 16 and 17:
{plan, fun start_count_trigger/1,fu
Page 18 and 19:
single parameter, an Erlang record
Page 20 and 21:
1. Belief annotations. Even though
Page 22 and 23:
decisions taken during the design a
Page 24 and 25:
Conceptual Integration of Agents wi
Page 26 and 27:
Fig. 2. Active component structurep
Page 28 and 29:
the service provider component. As
Page 30 and 31:
Fig. 4. Web Service Invocationretri
Page 32 and 33:
01: public interface IBankingServic
Page 34 and 35:
tate them in the same way as in the
Page 36 and 37:
01: public interface IChartService
Page 38 and 39:
implementations being available for
Page 41:
deliberative behavior in BDI archit
Page 44 and 45:
layer modules (i.e. nodes) can be d
Page 46 and 47:
different methods to choose the cur
Page 48 and 49:
also a single scheduler module, imp
Page 50 and 51:
andom choice (OR), conditional choi
Page 52 and 53:
- Dealing with conflicts based on p
Page 54 and 55: 5. Brooks, R. A. (1991) Intelligenc
Page 56 and 57: An Agent-Based Cognitive Robot Arch
Page 58 and 59: It has been argued that building ro
Page 60 and 61: EnvironmentHardwareLocal SoftwareC+
Page 62 and 63: a cognitive layer can connect as a
Page 64 and 65: can reliably be differentiated and
Page 66 and 67: 4 ExperimentTo evaluate the feasibi
Page 68 and 69: learn or gain knowledge from experi
Page 70 and 71: A Programming Framework for Multi-A
Page 72 and 73: exchange and storage of tuples (key
Page 74 and 75: Although some success [13] [14] hav
Page 76 and 77: as well as important non-functional
Page 78 and 79: component plans have been instantia
Page 80 and 81: A in the example) can evaluate all
Page 83 and 84: 1. robot-1 issues a Localization(ro
Page 85 and 86: ACKNOWLEDGMENTThis work has been su
Page 87 and 88: The code was analysed both objectiv
Page 89 and 90: a conversation is following. Additi
Page 91 and 92: the context of a communication-heav
Page 93 and 94: Table 1. Core Agent ProtocolsAgent
Page 95 and 96: statistically significant using an
Page 97 and 98: to the conversation and has a perfo
Page 99 and 100: principal reasons. Firstly, it is a
Page 101 and 102: 2. Muldoon, C., O’Hare, G.M.P., C
Page 103: In the following section we will at
Page 107 and 108: will then evaluate this new format
Page 109 and 110: encoder, it is first checked if the
Page 111 and 112: nents themselves. However, since th
Page 113 and 114: optimized for this format feature s
Page 115 and 116: Java serialization and Jadex Binary
Page 117 and 118: 10. P. Hoffman and F. Yergeau, “U
Page 119 and 120: Caching the results of previous que
Page 121 and 122: querying an agent’s beliefs and g
Page 123 and 124: or relative performance of each pla
Page 125 and 126: were run for 1.5 minutes; 1.5 minut
Page 127 and 128: Size N K n p c qry U c upd Update c
Page 129 and 130: epresentation. The cache simply act
Page 131 and 132: 6 ConclusionWe presented an abstrac
Page 133 and 134: Typing Multi-Agent Programs in simp
Page 135 and 136: 1 // agent ag02 iterations (" zero
Page 137 and 138: 3.1 simpAL OverviewThe main inspira
Page 139 and 140: 3.2 Typing Agents with Tasks and Ro
Page 141 and 142: Defining Agent Scripts in simpAL (F
Page 143 and 144: that sends a message to the receive
Page 145 and 146: * error: wrong type for the param v
Page 147 and 148: Given an organization model, it is
Page 149 and 150: Learning to Improve Agent Behaviour
Page 151 and 152: 2.1 Agent Programming LanguagesAgen
Page 153 and 154: choosing actions is to find a good
Page 155 and 156:
1 init module {2 knowledge{3 block(
Page 157 and 158:
of a module. For example, to change
Page 159 and 160:
if bel(on(X,Y), clear(X)), a-goal(c
Page 161 and 162:
mance. Figure 2d shows the same A f
Page 163 and 164:
the current percepts of the agent.
Page 165:
Author IndexAbdel-Naby, S., 69Alelc
show all

Here - Agents Lab - University of Nottingham

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?